Alaskan_Son

This is a known bug and I have reported it (probably multiple times). You can click Undo followed by Redo (Cntrl+Z then Cntrl+Y) which is what I find the quickest...or click Rebuild 3D...or simply open and close one of the cabinet dbx's and it should fix itself. All 3 of the above options just prompt a 3D rebuild so they should all work equally well.

Here are a couple more solutions if you don't like the idea of switching your Current CAD Layer... 1. If you use a template plan or the save as method, place the block in a CAD Detail and simply copy/paste from the detail. The layer definition will stick this way. 2. Use a warehouse plan and copy/paste from that. If its something you're simply sending to layout and it doesn't need to show on the floor plan...there's no reason to even copy and paste, just send directly from the warehouse plan or the CAD Detail. Point is that as long as the block isn't being pulled from the library or CAD Block Management it will retain the layer setting.

Here's that video for anyone who can make use of it. It goes over not only how to deal with the issue in question but also includes a few tips on how to make and clean up an As-Built Mask in general... Also, one additional note that I didn't include in the video... When you're done getting your mask to exactly how you want it, simply select all, cut, and paste/hold position back into your main plan. Then you can turn that AS-Built layer and and off as you wish. Hopefully someone can take a little something from all that. Have a great rest of your weekend fellas : )

I went ahead and wrote up a report to tech support on this issue. I'm including a copy of that report here just so everyone knows what the issue is and because I wanted to make a quick As-Built CAD Mask video to address the problem. I just think that video might be a lot more helpful though if you first recognize what the problems are... Hi guys, We have some pretty strange issues with CAD Blocks that I'd appreciate of you looked into. 1. When we create a CAD Detail From View, Chief automatically creates copies of any CAD Blocks associated with that view. When it does that, the copies of those blocks are often times faulty (especially when there is any complex curvature). See first attached image. The problem becomes apparent when trying to change the line style or color without exploding and manually editing the block in in great detail. 2. If we try to replace those faulty instances by dropping the original version of the CAD Block into the plan and renaming it using the name of the faulty copy, what happens is that the original block is deleted entirely. This happens whether or not Automatically Purge CAD Blocks is checked. This leaves the original symbol to which that CAD Block was assigned orphaned (without a CAD Block). See second image. 3. The symbol will remain orphaned until a new CAD Block is created. It doesn't matter what that CAD Block is, where it is created, or when it is created. Fact is that the next CAD Block created will be assigned to that symbol. See third image. I've found a workaround for issue #1 as I mentioned above, but that brings up issue #2. I also found a solution to issue #2 and that is to drop an instance of the original CAD Block into the plan and then to explode and reblock it BEFORE renaming it. This leaves the original CAD block untouched. Its an extra couple steps though and only adds to the hassle of having to workaround another issue in the first place. Anyway, its not my greatest work but here's a quick video going over the issues so you can more clearly see what I'm talking about. I think I went over just about everything except that workaround that deals with the last 2 issues... https://youtu.be/gW75hvJMtGg I'd really appreciate if you looked into this. There's no telling when and where these problems might rise up and cause a problem with some other task too. Thanks as always for your time : ) I'll try to get around to making that next video in just a bit here.

...unless you use it in Room Mode...

Can you clarify what your problem is and maybe attach a quick sample plan? I don't have any problem changing decking material either through the DBX or with the material painter...both work equally well and without problem.

Without a plan file its all guesses, but I'm putting my money on your exterior wall definition. I'm guesses your Build Platform To Exterior Of Layer: is set to your siding layer. Either that or you don't have any exterior layers (they're all on your main layer) which would force that setting.

It really just depends on the fireplace. Sometimes you can use the actual window or door panels (frame, glass, hinges, handles, and all) to create your actual fireplace unit and not just as a hole to put a freestanding unit into. In the example I posted I was simply trying to recreate an actual site built fireplace that truly did have bifold doors. I haven't done this but a person could even using window coverings (curtains) to recreate that mesh stuff that used to be so popular. A lot of possibilities.

OR bifold doors...

I don't think the 32 inch and 36 inch requirements are actually in conflict. It pretty much takes a 36" door to get a 32 inch clear opening with the door at 90° once you account for the thickness of the door, any hinge offset, the doorstop on the latch side, and maybe any stop mounted weatherstripping. One thing that is kinda interesting to me though is that they only require one door to meet the requirement. This is a lot different then a bedroom egress window situation because a person can relatively quickly find the largest opening window in a room but knowing which one of the six exterior doors in the house will allow your wheelchair to fit through in case of an emergency AND being able to quickly reach that door from any given location in the house is a very different situation.

I absolutely agree with this is well. I don't think the layout method is slow, but it's much less flexible and versatile than what we would have with plan view cameras or at least ref sets being tied to layer sets.

Absolutely agree with Joe. If you've named your pages in such a way that you know what they are, you can essentially do the whole thing right in the plan as long as the layout is actually open by using your project browser. Double click on the layout page in the project browser and then double click on the view in layout. You're only in layout for a split second. Honestly don't see how it could get much quicker than that. You can also even add a bunch of temporary/throwaway pages at the end of your layout for the sole purpose of creating an index of sorts during the rough design phase. Actually, you could even put a whole bunch on one single page by just downsizing the layout box and using the label as your guide. Definitely quite a few possibilities though.

The following is a quote from some IRC commentaries I recently read... "The code now specifies that the required net clear opening dimensions & the method for measuring when the door is opened to the 90 degree position. The minimum net opening dimensions are now consistent with the door requirements for means of egress & accessibility for persons with disabilities in the IBC." If the intent of the code is indeed to fall more in line with accessibility requirements, which I believe it probably is just based off the following 2 lines... "The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling..." and "Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort" ...than I can very easily see how a double door with an astrigal would not meet that requirement. Does the device require special knowledge? Maybe and maybe not, but is it a bit of an obstruction and does it require a least a little special knowledge and definitely some effort (especially if you're elderly or in a wheelchair)? I think the answer is YES. I can see that its a bit of a gray area but if I'm an inspector, I imagine I might not let a 5ft. double door fly.

Ya. This should really be reported to tech support. I don't think it should behave this way. And just in case you were wondering... I'm quite sober. I was just being silly : )

Might anudda way, but me thinks you hafsta tricking Chief... 1. Checks this box... 2. Change your layer color. 3. Go back in and unchecking that box 4. Change your layer color back. Last 2 steps are really optional. Might take a bit longer in some circumstances but could be a lot faster in others.

Glenn pretty much hit on the most important points, and good advice about spacing the top and bottom evenly. I'm usually pretty good about figuring out stuff like this. That one definitely never occurred to me though. Kudos Glenn! The one thing I would add to Glenn's list of truss editing tips though would be this... You can get pretty much ANY truss configuration you want manually by using these tools... -Trim Object(s) -Extend Object(s) ...Both of which work for truss framing members just like they do with CAD objects -Join and Lap Ends -Join and Mitre Ends Anyway, just wanted to throw those additional ideas out there before I check out for the night.

Jacquilla, I won't get into the rest of the plan, just want to help you deal with the dilemma at hand. Your main problem is right here... All your layers are main layers which means you can only dimension to the one side of your dimension layer, the center of the wall, and the outside edges of the wall. What your wall definition should probably look like is this... Now you can dimension to both sides of the main layer as well as the center and outside edges.

I know you do Scott, and I appreciate you as well good sir. The points are a fairly minor detail although they do give a certain sense of satisfaction for an oftentimes thankless and underpaying job. My real point was that AT LEAST 3 people (judging by how rarely people distribute points I'd venture to guess the real number was much higher) either didn't take the time to read or comprehend my post (which wasn't all that complicated by the way) or they just chose to ignore it (pretty inconsiderate in a forum situation if you ask me). The points are just evidence to suggest the time I took writing it up may have been a waste of time is all. It's really no wonder so many people have such a problem attaining any sort of mastery of this program. If a person can't read and comprehend the forum, the manual, or the help files then they're stuck learning from videos. It would take countless hours, days, and weeks of watching videos to gain what you could learn in a few hours reading and taking time to comprehend what it is you're reading. I've noticed over the years that people seem to "understand" better when watching videos but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they never really grasp the concept though unless they've trudged through and figured it out through hard earned first hand experience getting it done or by reading to comprehend. When a person reads something and puts forth the effort to really comprehend what the writer is saying, they're making a conscious decision to invest in learning something. They are very purposefully learning and it's more likely to stick. A video is very passive...you can much more easily fade in and out of consciousness watching and you don't have to put any real effort into learning. I've noticed that many people who require videos are some of the first to forget how to do it. They can't explain how it's done without pointing somebody else to another video and they're constantly re-watching videos because they don't remember how. I'm starting to ramble so I'll be done. It's just kind of frustrating to go out of your way to help and then realize people aren't even reading it.

Yep. That's exactly why I spelled it out in the post just before yours. It's funny, you got 2 points for making a video that just repeated exactly what I had just finished saying but I got nuthin'. I'm very seriously starting to question people's ability to read and comprehend anymore. If there's no video people just can't seem to understand. Not too encouraging...I probably shouldn't have wasted my time. But yes...great idea Perry, thanks for bringing it up.

If I understand correctly what you're trying to do... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall types and draw one short section of each. 2. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan) and copy/paste those 2 wall types into your plan. 3. Delete the walls. 4. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. You should be good to go. You can also... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall definitions and File>Export>Export Wall Definitions. 2. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan). 3. File>Import>Import Wall Definitions. 4. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. This option may give you some unwanted wall types though as well. I would personally just recommend the first option. Or... 1. Open an old plan that still has those wall definitions. 2. Draw a short section of each wall type (if they aren't already in use), select them, and click Add To Library (in the edit tool bar) 3. Open a new plan (this should open your template plan). 4. Select the walls from your library one at a time and draw a short section of each in your plan. 5. Delete the walls. 6. Click on File>Templates>Save As Template. The last 4 steps are optional and only necessary if you want the walls available in your drop down list. If do as Perry suggested and add them to your library, any such walls will be available to easily select and drop into ANY plan in the future. In other words, using the first 2 methods I spelled out above, the wall types would only be available in your template plan whereas placing directly into the library, they would be available to use in other plans as well. And BTW, these are all options already mentioned by the guys above. I was just trying to clarify and elaborate a bit.

In addition to using Transform/Replicate, here are 3 more solutions... 1. Edit>Edit Behaviors>Rotate/Resize About Current Point. Now drop a temporary point at one end of your arc and rotate it as you wish. 2. Use the arc's dbx. You'll need to lock the appropriate end of your arc and then use the Chord Angle to rotate your arc... 3. Just rotate using the normal rotate handle. You can then re-position the arc by grabbing it by the appropriate end edit handle using your center mouse button (essentially tuns any edit handle into a move handle).

Looks to me like you accidentally added or edited that one entry manually. Look at the start and end times. It says you've been working on that for 6 straight months.

Michael, Is there a reason you don't just use the landscape orientation and rotate the layout box? This is what I think I would do. Also, something else that may or may not come in handy...try unchecking "Rotate With Plan" in the appropriate dimension defaults. I think the first idea I mentioned above is the best solution though.

Try either... A. Using Custom Countertops (which is what I normally do myself) and control the display via layer settings or... B. Set the line style for your cabinets in one of your layer sets (maybe create a new "Countertop Layout" layer set) to the "invisible" or "blank" line style... This way only your countertops will actually show.

Larry, I took a quick look at your plan but it appears the version you attached had already been changed so I couldn't test with your original settings. What I think was going on though was a result of your using one of Chief's tools incorrectly...specifically, the Slab Footing tool. That tool isn't a normal wall type and was designed to build monolithic slab foundations with (which your foundation really isn't). I think you should be using an entirely different wall type, probably a normal foundation wall. I think the program is just getting confused when you try to paint the wall and was doing a rebuild of sorts to those walls which were reverting to their original purpose (the footings for a monolithic slab foundation) and therefore the attempted change resulted in a mono slab. Hard to say what exactly was happening without the original plan though. That being said, Perry was right that you should still be using an exterior layer. What you were trying to do was essentially paint the footing which as far as I know isn't even possible except right here... and regardless wouldn't have resulted in an accurate model...you weren't going to build that foundation with stucco were you ?